It seems to me that trinitarianism is inconsistent with divine simplicity. I can't find anything from Hart where he addresses this. If anyone can recommend something I would very much appreciate it.
As interesting as Hart is, he still comes from the bias of his high church Anglican cultural background. Conforming Christianity to a liberal intellectual heritage. It is the same problem with N.T.Wright and his evangelicalism. Even in his New Testament postscript he seems to concede that there are some verses of scripture that infer an eternal hell. Furthermore, when Hart talks about Jesus of Nazareth, I am not sure that this historical person comes across as central / deeply important to him? Beyond an abstract cerebral Christology that is (mythological / gnostic?) His understanding of God is at its most vivid and believable for him - at the most personal level and intellectually coherent - when he is speaking in the kind of profound abstraction of classical philosophy. As a former Christian, my understanding of God / LOGOS finds intellectual and psychological sustenance from Heraclitus, Parmenides, Socrates, Stoic and Platonic cosmology and even Boethius - when the later is just being a classicist. On every level Hart seems to as well. Honestly, what is the BEST of Hart's thinking to my mind, does not even need Christianity at all!? It raises the next question. Given that our classical heritage fits so well with our scientific and broader world view, why is there not a move to promote a return to communities, akin to churches, that promote such an intellectual tradition? With the growing level of global education, the average person is in a position to be taught to understand Plato and Boethius etc as never before.
@@tonyoliver2750 Classical education - knowledge of Latin - no. But e.g. Global youth literacy rates have improved from 83% to 91% over the past two decades (UNICEF).
@@pasquino0733 I'm not sure what that's supposed to mean. I'm merely responding to your comments on education. I could have addressed your ad hominem ( "As interesting as Hart is, he still comes from the bias of his high church Anglican cultural background" ) pointing out that his Anglican background was no barrier to his joining the Eastern Orthodox Church and in any case is irrelevant to the arguments he makes, but I didn't because your comment about the supposed "growing level of global education" was more deserving of a comment. Being able to read is very useful when it comes to acquiring an education, but it's only a tool. How many of the 91% understand [insert subject] or even know how to question the dominant narrative?
![ทางเดินชีวิต - ธีเดช ทองอภิชาติ x อ.ไข่ มาลีฮวนน่า [Official MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/1f3wcG16dd4/mqdefault.jpg)
It seems to me that trinitarianism is inconsistent with divine simplicity. I can't find anything from Hart where he addresses this. If anyone can recommend something I would very much appreciate it.
Look into James Dolezal
Check out *The Beauty of the Infinite*
As interesting as Hart is, he still comes from the bias of his high church Anglican cultural background. Conforming Christianity to a liberal intellectual heritage. It is the same problem with N.T.Wright and his evangelicalism. Even in his New Testament postscript he seems to concede that there are some verses of scripture that infer an eternal hell. Furthermore, when Hart talks about Jesus of Nazareth, I am not sure that this historical person comes across as central / deeply important to him? Beyond an abstract cerebral Christology that is (mythological / gnostic?) His understanding of God is at its most vivid and believable for him - at the most personal level and intellectually coherent - when he is speaking in the kind of profound abstraction of classical philosophy. As a former Christian, my understanding of God / LOGOS finds intellectual and psychological sustenance from Heraclitus, Parmenides, Socrates, Stoic and Platonic cosmology and even Boethius - when the later is just being a classicist. On every level Hart seems to as well. Honestly, what is the BEST of Hart's thinking to my mind, does not even need Christianity at all!? It raises the next question. Given that our classical heritage fits so well with our scientific and broader world view, why is there not a move to promote a return to communities, akin to churches, that promote such an intellectual tradition? With the growing level of global education, the average person is in a position to be taught to understand Plato and Boethius etc as never before.
"Growing level of global education..." you jest, surely?
@@tonyoliver2750 Classical education - knowledge of Latin - no. But e.g. Global youth literacy rates have improved from 83% to 91% over the past two decades (UNICEF).
@@pasquino0733 Being able to read a text message is not the same as being educated.
@@tonyoliver2750 You're on a roll I see...
@@pasquino0733 I'm not sure what that's supposed to mean. I'm merely responding to your comments on education. I could have addressed your ad hominem ( "As interesting as Hart is, he still comes from the bias of his high church Anglican cultural background" ) pointing out that his Anglican background was no barrier to his joining the Eastern Orthodox Church and in any case is irrelevant to the arguments he makes, but I didn't because your comment about the supposed "growing level of global education" was more deserving of a comment. Being able to read is very useful when it comes to acquiring an education, but it's only a tool. How many of the 91% understand [insert subject] or even know how to question the dominant narrative?